Successful treatment of traumatic scars with combined nonablative fractional laser and pinpoint technique of standard CO<sub>2</sub>laser
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the use of a pinpoint irradiation technique followed by nonablative fractional technique in treatment of traumatic scars. Thirteen patients with traumatic sacrs were treated with pinpoint technique of CO2 laser using traditional headpiece activating laser at a frequency (50 Hz) to deliver pulsed mode with power of 1 W using the focusing technique followed by 3-5 passes of the nonablative 1540 nm fractional Er:glass laser. An independent physician evaluator assessed the treatment outcomes using Vancouver scar scale (VSS) and 5-point grading scale (grade 0, no improvement; grade 1, 1-25%; grade 2, 26-50%; grade 3, 51-75%; grade 4, 76-100% improvement). After the final treatment, average percentage changes of VSS were 41.5%. Improvement was evident in terms of vascularity, pigmentation, and height, while insignificant in terms of Pliability. Based on physician's global assessment, mean grade of 2.5 was achieved. Patient's subjective satisfaction scores paralleled the physician's objective evaluation. Pinpoint irradiation technique by CO2 laser followed by nonablative fractional laser is a safe and effective modality in treatment of scars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it